[Zimphire]

It's what their lying Vice president in running is telling them.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/5983107/

Democratic vice presidential candidate John Edwards on Sunday accused President Bush and Vice President Dick Cheney of misleading Americans by implying a link between deposed Iraqi President Saddam Hussein and the Sept. 11, 2001 terrorist attacks.

The president�s remarks last year were in response to questions about a Cheney appearance on NBC�s �Meet the Press� three days earlier in which the vice president said �I don�t know� when asked whether Saddam was involved in the 9/11 attacks.

However, the Kerry-Edwards campaign argued on Sunday that Cheney suggested such a link as recently as last week.

Speaking at a town-hall meeting in Cincinnati, Cheney recounted the invasion of Afghanistan after the attacks, in which the United States punished the Taliban for harboring al-Qaida. Then he said, �In Iraq, we had a similar situation.�

Saddam �provided safe harbor and sanctuary for terrorists for years,� including al-Qaida, Cheney said.

Edwards said: �Vice President Cheney should not say the kind of things he said Friday and the president should not mislead the American people by implying there�s connection between September the 11th and the attacks of September 11th and Saddam Hussein.�

The Sept. 11 commission cited contacts between Saddam�s regime and al-Qaida chief Osama bin Laden, but said there was no �collaborative operational relationship� and said Iraq was not involved in the Sept. 11 terrorist strikes.

Edwards obviously has comprehension problems, or is purposely trying to mislead people. Cheney never made any such connections.

I give Edwards the "I need to take reading comprehension 101" award of the week.

This is just more examples of the left trying to distort the truth, and rewrite history.

Heck we have Dems in here that think Bush said such a thing. That goes right a long with the 50% that thought Saddam DID have something to do with 9/11.

The difference here is, the Left's leaders have ACTUALLY told them that Bush and Cheney has made such comments.

I don't know HOW many Lefties I have had to correct about this. They all claim that Bush and Cheney made such comments. After all the Dems told them so!

This and the "Bush only gave one reason (WMD) to attack Iraq from the start" FUD the left keep spreading are two of the biggest leftist lies being spread on the internet today.

Months from now you'll still see people repeating the same tired lies.

[deedar]

You are just another lemming...

[Cody Dawg]

Zimph, they're desperate.

They'll do anything right about now to try to sway the election.

All Bush has to do is just keep his mouth shut and do nothing for another couple of months and it's in the bag for him.

Kerry and Edwards are imploding right before the world's eyes.

[BlackGriffen]

When Bush says that you cannot distinguish between al Qaeda and Saddam Hussein in the WoT, he's either dismissing 9/11 or implying that Hussein was somehow invovled.

Don't make me dig up the clip of when he says that.

BlackGriffen

[kido]

Originally posted by BlackGriffen:
When Bush says that you cannot distinguish between al Qaeda and Saddam Hussein in the WoT, he's either dismissing 9/11 or implying that Hussein was somehow invovled.

Don't make me dig up the clip of when he says that.

BlackGriffen

Perhaps he means one is a terrorist group that is responsible for 9/11 and the other simply supports terrorism, given that we are no longer going to excuse the latter. They are both culpable targets in the WOT since they have supported terrorist activities, but not the same activities. If President Bush were to claim that you cannot distinguish between al Qaeda and the Chechnya rebels in the WOT, would you think he was drawing a direct link to 9/11? Would someone who claimed you cannot distinguish between gun owners and the NRA in the war on crime be asserting that the NRA was somehow directly involved in every homicide committed with a firearm? How about not distinguishing between Ken Lay and Martha Stewart in the corporate abuse scandals? Does this imply that Ken Lay and Martha Stewart have a direct link to one another, or rather that they are both contributing to the culture of corporate greed and must both be dealt with accordingly? President Bush's statement does not imply prior involvement, but rather that they are equal in the danger that they represent. You can disagree with this assertion, but I do not see how he implies that Saddam is responsible for past events. He is suggesting that the two might work together in the future to do harm to the U.S.

Here is the full quote you are referring to:

September 25, 2002
Patsy Wilson, Reuters.

Q Mr. President, do you believe that Saddam Hussein is a bigger threat to the United States than al Qaeda?

PRESIDENT BUSH: That's a -- that is an interesting question. I'm trying to think of something humorous to say. (Laughter.) But I can't when I think about al Qaeda and Saddam Hussein. They're both risks, they're both dangerous. The difference, of course, is that al Qaeda likes to hijack governments. Saddam Hussein is a dictator of a government. Al Qaeda hides, Saddam doesn't, but the danger is, is that they work in concert. The danger is, is that al Qaeda becomes an extension of Saddam's madness and his hatred and his capacity to extend weapons of mass destruction around the world.

Both of them need to be dealt with. The war on terror, you can't distinguish between al Qaeda and Saddam when you talk about the war on terror. And so it's a comparison that is -- I can't make because I can't distinguish between the two, because they're both equally as bad, and equally as evil, and equally as destructive.

[Zimphire]

Originally posted by deedar:
You are just another lemming...

What does this have to do with my topic oh shilly one? How does my post suddenly make me a lemming because you just posted the silliness above? More than likely, you are just looking in the mirror.

[Zimphire]

Originally posted by BlackGriffen:
When Bush says that you cannot distinguish between al Qaeda and Saddam Hussein in the WoT, he's either dismissing 9/11 or implying that Hussein was somehow invovled.

Don't make me dig up the clip of when he says that.

BlackGriffen

LAWWWWWWL! You HAVE to be kidding BG. If that isn't projection on your part I don't know what is.

He was speaking about the war on terror. That Al-Qaeda and Saddam Hussein wont be distinguished because they BOTH add to terror in this world. He said NOTHING about them both having to do with 9/11, nor was he dismissing it. Nothing was implied.

Did you jump off the CBS memo story ship right before it went down just to jump on another sinking ship BG?

[Zimphire]

Originally posted by kido:
Perhaps he means one is a terrorist group that is responsible for 9/11 and the other simply supports terrorism, given that we are no longer going to excuse the latter. They are both culpable targets in the WOT since they have supported terrorist activities, but not the same activities. If President Bush were to claim that you cannot distinguish between al Qaeda and the Chechnya rebels in the WOT, would you think he was drawing a direct link to 9/11? Would someone who claimed you cannot distinguish between gun owners and the NRA in the war on crime be asserting that the NRA was somehow directly involved in every homicide committed with a firearm? How about not distinguishing between Ken Lay and Martha Stewart in the corporate abuse scandals? Does this imply that Ken Lay and Martha Stewart have a direct link to one another, or rather that they are both contributing to the culture of corporate greed and must both be dealt with accordingly? President Bush's statement does not imply prior involvement, but rather that they are equal in the danger that they represent. You can disagree with this assertion, but I do not see how he implies that Saddam is responsible for past events. He is suggesting that the two might work together in the future to do harm to the U.S.

Here is the full quote you are referring to:

[realitybath]

Originally posted by Zimphire:
What does this have to do with my topic oh shilly one?... lemming... ...

from your first post:

Originally posted by Zimphire:
Heck we have Dems in here that think Bush said such a thing. That goes right a long with the 50% that thought Saddam DID have something to do with 9/11.

I don't know HOW many Lefties I have had to correct about this. They all claim that Bush and Cheney made such comments. After all the Dems told them so!

from the article:

Originally posted by Zimphire:
The Administration�s manipulation and distortion of the intelligence about Iraq�s ties to Al Qaeda and its national security threat to the United States was anything but a secret in Washington, as the pages of this book make clear.

So, i don't understand how you couldn't understand how his link has something to do with the topic?
If you mean you disagree with the linked story, I can see that; if so say so.
Unless your being obtuse or just joking around.

(disclosure: I think you are a bit of a lemming too.)
edit: edited second quote to be more representative.

[Zimphire]

Originally posted by realitybath:
from the article:

LAWL! The administration gave the information they were given. That isn't manipulating anything. And nowhere does it say in it that Bush made any Saddam/9/11 connections. You sir are off topic. Saddam/Al-qaeda does not = Saddam 9/11

And the 9/11 commission ITSELF said there was NO DOUBT there was a link between Saddam and that certain terrorist organization. They said however there was no link FOUND between Saddam and 9/11. Something I just showed you Bush never said.

So, i don't understand how you couldn't understand how his link has something to do with the topic?

BECAUSE THIS TOPIC IS ABOUT SADDAM 9/11 connection. NOT SADDAM AL-QEADA connection. WHICH IS NO LONGER BEING QUESTIONED.

You are doing the EXACT same thing Edwards is doing and you DON'T EVEN REALIZE IT!! Heh.

If you mean you disagree with the linked story, I can see that; if so say so.
Unless your being obtuse or just joking around.

I am not the one being obtuse here.

(disclosure: I think you are a bit of a lemming too.)
edit: edited second quote to be more representative.

Heh, yes because I am the one trying to make Sadda<>Alqeada connection into a Saddam<>911 connection. You're funny.

Time to take your own little bath in reality bub.

One more time in case you get them mixed up again.

Saddam<>Al qeada connection. does not = Saddam <> 9/11 connection.

Understand?

[realitybath]

Originally posted by Zimphire:

LAWL! The administration gave the information they were given. That isn't manipulating anything. And nowhere does it say in it that Bush made any Saddam/9/11 connections. You sir are off topic. Saddam/Al-qaeda does not = Saddam 9/11

And the 9/11 commission ITSELF said there was NO DOUBT there was a link between Saddam and that certain terrorist organization. They said however there was no link FOUND between Saddam and 9/11. Something I just showed you Bush never said.
[/b]
BECAUSE THIS TOPIC IS ABOUT SADDAM 9/11 connection. NOT SADDAM AL-QEADA connection. WHICH IS NO LONGER BEING QUESTIONED.

You are doing the EXACT same thing Edwards is doing and you DON'T EVEN REALIZE IT!! Heh.
[/b]
I am not the one being obtuse here.

Heh, yes because I am the one trying to make Sadda<>Alqeada connection into a Saddam<>911 connection. You're funny.

Time to take your own little bath in reality bub.

One more time in case you get them mixed up again.

Saddam<>Al qeada connection. does not = Saddam <> 9/11 connection.

Understand? [/B]

HAHAHA! Your so easy man... it was you being obtuse:

what i was referring to is the fact that if lowly you(and I) can note that there are misconceptions(on both sides i might add) about the connection, don't you think for a minute a team running (and running for) the country might know that too? Isn't that what the pollsters, opinion-watchers, and spin doctors are for my friend?

And if it is known that there is a Saddam/al-Qaida = 9/11 misconception in the states, making statements like Cheney made ("In Iraq, we had a similar situation") is a perfect spin!

HEY! THIS topic is about BOTH the Saddam/9/11 'link' and the Saddam/al-Qaida 'link' because BOTH still play roles in the American psyche, and BOTH are related to what you are arguing, AND both subjects are not as black and white as your 'elders' would like you to believe.

Also, I'M not doing exactly what edwards is doing because I can see
a) the logic of the argument(that edwards was, perhaps not implicitly, but yes explicitly, 'missing' Cheney's overt point) YOU pointed out originally, and that I NEVER DISAGREED WITH at *face value*.
b) that he is 'spinning', JUST AS CHENEY IS TRYING TO 'SPIN' AT THE SAME TIME.
c) Deedar's link IS relevant, especially given the misconceptions YOU POINT OUT. There are in fact at least two relevancies... one to do with the misconceptions, and one to do with how a person would view the article through their own bias filters-which brings into play how different 'pure-style' American party members would compare that article and what you are saying. This also follows the 'lemming' concept, where people can be too simplistic in following 'authoritative word' as if it is pure logic - something you are blaming others for (rightly AND wrongly) while at the same time doing it yourself!

And finally, this is great!, your the second person here to call me out on a reality bath, when in fact you were getting it!

Have a nice day woot!

edit: i ignored your manipulation comment since its so absurdly naive, considering even a cursory knowledge of politics.

[Zimphire]

Originally posted by realitybath:
HAHAHA! Your so easy man... it was you being obtuse:

I am not the one that thinks the two are the same.

what i was referring to is the fact that if lowly you(and I) can note that there are misconceptions(on both sides i might add) about the connection, don't you think for a minute a team running (and running for) the country might know that too? Isn't that what the pollsters, opinion-watchers, and spin doctors are for my friend?

Yes, they know it too. And they have came out and SAID THEMSELVES THERE WAS NO CONNECTION. Would you like me to post some Bush quotes making such statements?

And if it is known that there is a al-Qaida = 9/11 misconception in the states, making statements like Cheney made ("In Iraq, we had a similar situation") is a perfect spin!

LAAWL! No you are trying to fit pieces there that don't go together. What Cheney said is, they were both being handled the same BECAUSE THEY BOTH WERE ABOUT THE WAR ON TERROR.

He never said a word about 9/11.

HEY! THIS topic is about BOTH the Saddam/9/11 'link' and the Saddam/al-Qaida 'link' because BOTH still play roles in the American psyche, and BOTH are related to what you are arguing, AND both subjects are not as black and white as your 'elders' would like you to believe.

What? You just made that up. Cheney spoke about the Iraq connection with the war on terror. NOT with 9/11. You are knee-jerking.

Also, I'M not doing exactly what edwards is doing because I can see
a) the logic of the argument(that edwards was, perhaps not implicitly, but yes explicitly, 'missing' Cheney's overt point) YOU pointed out originally, and that I NEVER DISAGREED WITH at *face value*.

And I am telling you Edwards had no right to make such a baseless claim.

b) that he is 'spinning', JUST AS CHENEY IS TRYING TO 'SPIN' AT THE SAME TIME.

Show me how Cheney is spinning. He isn't the one claiming a person is saying something they aren't.

c) Deedar's link IS relevant, especially given the misconceptions YOU POINT OUT. There are in fact at least two relevancies... one to do with the misconceptions, and one to do with how a person would view the article through their own bias filters-which brings into play how different 'pure-style' American party members would compare that article and what you are saying. This also follows the 'lemming' concept, where people can be too simplistic in following 'authoritative word' as if it is pure logic - something you are blaming others for (rightly AND wrongly) while at the same time doing it yourself!

And finally, this is great!, your the second person here to call me out on a reality bath, when in fact you were getting it!

Have a nice day woot!

LAWL! So it's Cheney's fault if someone takes what he said, twists it into their own agenda, (Like you are doing) and comes up with their own conclusion?

Ahahaha. You do know MANY Democrats at the time thought Saddam had something to do with it too right? A lot of people did. And it had nothing to do with this administration or what they said.

People can use their own logic. This proves that the lemming thing is absurd.

Edwards and Kerry are trying to sell this as a WMD thing. They don't want their opposition busting that up. Cheney never made a 9/11 comparison or connection.

Edwards is projecting. Just like you did above. You want it to be true because of your political ties. If anyone is being a lemming here....

Stop trying to spread disinformation.

[Secret__Police]

Bush should attend a public speaking school. He speaks like a Dolt.
Edwards and bush can study together.

[Zimphire]

Originally posted by Secret__Police:
Bush should attend a public speaking school. He speaks like a Dolt.
Edwards and bush can study together.

And his mom wears army boots!

With a kick-stand!

[deedar]

Originally posted by Secret__Police:
He speaks like a Dolt.

Yup.

[Secret__Police]

Originally posted by Zimphire:
And his mom wears army boots!

With a kick-stand!

Never thought I would hear you say that about Mrs Bush

[Zimphire]

Originally posted by Secret__Police:
Never thought I would hear you say that about Mrs Bush

[CreepingDeth]

Originally posted by Zimphire:

I think he was talking about Edwards' mom.

Where do you get those smilies?

[Zimphire]

Originally posted by CreepingDeath:
I think he was talking about Edwards' mom.

Where do you get those smilies?

On this cool thing Gore invented called the interweb.

[CreepingDeth]

Linked from a image space, but do you save em there or do ya make em?

[Zimphire]

I have made some, and I have found some.

I just put all the ones I use on my server so I am not stealing any bandwidth.

[CreepingDeth]

Remember the site names?

[Zimphire]

No. Just do a search for them in google.

[MacGallant]

If Pres. Bush invaded Iraq on the basis that Saddam had weapons of mass destruction, why then didn't we invade North Korea as well? Cause North Korea definitely has nuclear weapons that could hit the US West Coast. And how about Russia & China? They definitely have a huge stock pile of nuclear weapons, I guess we'll take them out as well.

We all know that we're in this Iraqi War not to establish democracy (In the past, we toppled a democracy in Saudi Arabia because they weren't serving our best interest and we instituted a dictatorship/monarchy puppet government in Saudi Arabia that was more to our "liking"). We're in Iraq for the oil. We're not invading North Korea because it lacks natural resources. There's nothing of any value in North Korea.

[Zimphire]

Originally posted by MacGallant:
If Pres. Bush invaded Iraq on the basis that Saddam had weapons of mass destruction, why then didn't we invade North Korea as well? Cause North Korea definitely has nuclear weapons that could hit the US West Coast. And how about Russia & China? They definitely have a huge stock pile of nuclear weapons, I guess we'll take them out as well.

#1 We already have invested time and promises into Iraq.
#2 Once a country gets nukes, it's too late. That is why you STOP them from making them in the first place. And not wait around till they actually get them.

We all know that we're in this Iraqi War not to establish democracy (In the past, we toppled a democracy in Saudi Arabia because they weren't serving our best interest and we instituted a dictatorship/monarchy puppet government in Saudi Arabia that was more to our "liking"). We're in Iraq for the oil. We're not invading North Korea because it lacks natural resources. There's nothing of any value in North Korea.

Oh puhlease. Not the old "Blood for oil" schtick. It's been awhile since someone has used that FUD in here. I am surprised you didn't get the memo that it was outdated.

We get most of our oil from Canada. If it was about oil, we'd invade them. Lots closer.

Heck if it was just about oil, we'd have taken it back in 91. But we didn't.

We aren't taking it now either.

[deedar]

Originally posted by Zimphire:

We get most of our oil from Canada. [/B]

BS. Back it up. One more time, you are FOS.

[Zimphire]

Originally posted by deedar:
BS. Back it up. One more time, you are FOS.

One more time, I back it up.

From Google. In order listed.

http://www.notsopop.com/articles/the...ntentions.html

I have not seen any of the conclusive evidence of which our current administration speaks of so often, and I watched Secretary of State Colin Powell's presentation to the UN Security Council almost in it's entirety. As for the Anti-War movement, it's Oil argument seems implausable, as America gets most of it's oil from Canada and other non-arabic countries.

http://observer.guardian.co.uk/comme...680100,00.html

As so often with realpolitik, the knowing arguments of Left and Right have no basis in real politics. America gets most of its oil from the Americas - Canada, Mexico, Venezuela and the USA itself. Only a quarter comes from the Persian Gulf. If it found supplies elsewhere - in Russia, for example - or contained its profligate burning of energy, the US would have little need to worry about the Middle East.

I think you need to apologize.

[Secret__Police]

Originally posted by Zimphire:


Heck if it was just about oil, we'd have taken it back in 91. But we didn't.

We aren't taking it now either.

Have you read Bush1's comments on why he did not capture or occupy Iraq?
bush Jr should of listened to his dad. Just a question.

[spacefreak]

Originally posted by MacGallant:
If Pres. Bush invaded Iraq on the basis that Saddam had weapons of mass destruction, why then didn't we invade North Korea as well?

How do you not see the difference?

Bush's policy is often referred to as one of preemption, as in get the thugs (Saddam) out of power out of there BEFORE they become an imminent threat.

North Korea already has nukes (Thanks, Bill Clinton), so an armed conflict with them carries a lot more risks to the homeland.

[thunderous_funker]

Originally posted by spacefreak:
How do you not see the difference?

Bush's policy is often referred to as one of preemption, as in get the thugs (Saddam) out of power out of there BEFORE they become an imminent threat.

North Korea already has nukes (Thanks, Bill Clinton), so an armed conflict with them carries a lot more risks to the homeland.

Ok, so explain the administration's position on Iran then.

If the possiblity of Iraq getting the bomb was enough to launch a unilateral invasion and occupation entailing untold costs and alienating our allies, why does the administration insist that the Iran problem can be solved diplomatically?

[Zimphire]

More on who we get our oil from

http://www.breakthechain.org/exclusives/foreignoil.html

The United States gets its oil from a variety of domestic and international sources. Less than one-third of our oil imports come from Arab nations. In fact, we get almost as much oil from Canada and Mexico as we do from Algeria, Iraq, Kuwait, Qatar, and Saudi Arabia combined.

Read that deeder? Still don't think you owe me an apology?

[Zimphire]

More facts for you to chew on.

http://www.eere.energy.gov/vehiclesa..._fotw246.shtml



Who is on the top of that list Deeder?

I'll be expecting an apology shortly.

[deedar]

Originally posted by Zimphire:
More on who we get our oil from

http://www.breakthechain.org/exclusives/foreignoil.html



Read that deeder? Still don't think you owe me an apology? [/B]

Don't owe you squat, zitty:

http://www.eia.doe.gov/pub/oil_gas/p...nt/import.html

Now, follow if you can:

1.7/10.5 x 100 = 16%

[deedar]

Originally posted by Zimphire:
More facts for you to chew on.

http://www.eere.energy.gov/vehiclesa..._fotw246.shtml



Who is on the top of that list Deeder?

I'll be expecting an apology shortly.

Zitty - you said we get most of our imported oil from Canada, even your chart says otherise. Your assertion means that you need to compare the imports from Canada with the sum of all other imports - combined. Are your mathematical abilities as compromised as you speaking/writing ones?

[Zimphire]

Originally posted by deedar:
Don't owe you squat, zitty:

http://www.eia.doe.gov/pub/oil_gas/p...nt/import.html

Now, follow if you can:

1.7/10.5 x 100 = 16%

And who is on top of the list? Which country do we get most oil from?



Let me give you a hint. It's the one on top.

We get almost as much oil from Canada and Mexico as we do from Algeria, Iraq, Kuwait, Qatar, and Saudi Arabia combined.

[deedar]

Originally posted by Zimphire:
We get almost as much oil from Canada and Mexico as we do from Algeria, Iraq, Kuwait, Qatar, and Saudi Arabia combined.

And, besides the one on top of your head, your point?

[Zimphire]

I am speaking about the dependance on ME oil schtick.

We get more from Canada and Mexico than we do of all ME countries combined.

[olePigeon]

"The battle of Iraq is one victory in a war on terror that began on September the 11th, 2001."

That statement is purposely misleading.

[Zimphire]

Originally posted by olePigeon:
"The battle of Iraq is one victory in a war on terror that began on September the 11th, 2001."

That statement is purposely misleading.

How is it misleading? The war on terror began on Sept 11th. Iraq was a part of the war on terror.

Had they said "War on the people who attacked us" you'd have a point.

[olePigeon]

Originally posted by Zimphire:
How is it misleading? The war on terror began on Sept 11th. Iraq was a part of the war on terror.

Had they said "War on the people who attacked us" you'd have a point.

Now you're just being a smartass. The statement is clear when you sit down and analyze it. When you hear it in a speech, and especially with the emphasis that Bush used, it is extremely misleading. In fact, when allegations came up that they were lying (which is debatable if you consider purposely misleading someone lying) Bush & Co.'s excuse as to why so many people were mislead was exactly because of that, they used the wrong emphasis.

When did the war on terrorism begin? Certainly didn't start only on September 11th. We've been combating terrorism for a long time. When did Bush decide to announce going to war with Iraq? How does that collate with the September 11th attacks? What, exactly, do you think was on the forefront of peoples' minds when they heard "Iraq," "war on terror," and "September 11th?" Simple, we're going to war with Iraq as a result of September 11th.

People will assume that Iraq was either a part of the terrorist attacks on September 11th, or, directly responsible for it.

[kido]

Does this seem misleading?

"The conviction of Martha Stewart is one victory in a war on corporate greed that began on December the 2nd, 2001, the day Enron declared bankruptcy."

How about this:

"The conviction of Gen. Manuel Noriega is one victory in a war on drugs that began on September 18, 1970, the day Jimi Hendrix died."

[Zimphire]

Originally posted by olePigeon:
Now you're just being a smartass. The statement is clear when you sit down and analyze it.

No, I didn't have to analyze it. You are WANTING it to mean something else SO BAD that you have tricked your own self into believing it.

Give it up. No connection was made in said statement.

This is what is known as "grasping for straws"

Had a lefty not told you to think that you wouldn't have given it a second glance.

[olePigeon]

Originally posted by Zimphire:
No, I didn't have to analyze it. You are WANTING it to mean something else SO BAD that you have tricked your own self into believing it.

Give it up. No connection was made in said statement.

After Bush made that statement, an average of 7 out of 10 Americans believed that Iraq had something to do with September 11th. How can you say that there was connection made in the statement?

[Zimphire]

Originally posted by olePigeon:
After Bush made that statement, an average of 7 out of 10 Americans believed that Iraq had something to do with September 11th.

Actually I am betting they believed that before that as well. I know I would have. That is just being logical.

How can you say that there was connection made in the statement?

How can you say there was? You too are just assuming.

[olePigeon]

Originally posted by Zimphire:
Actually I am betting they believed that before that as well. I know I would have. That is just being logical.

How can you say there was? You too are just assuming.

Shortly after that statement, he said "The liberation of Iraq is a crucial advance in the campaign against terror. We've removed an ally of al Qaeda, and cut off a source of terrorist funding... We have not forgotten the victims of September the 11th -- the last phone calls, the cold murder of children, the searches in the rubble."

How can you not assume there's a link between Iraq and al Qaeda from that statement? Or am I reaching for straws again?

[Zimphire]

Originally posted by olePigeon:
Shortly after that statement, he said "The liberation of Iraq is a crucial advance in the campaign against terror. We've removed an ally of al Qaeda, and cut off a source of terrorist funding... We have not forgotten the victims of September the 11th -- the last phone calls, the cold murder of children, the searches in the rubble."

How can you not assume there's a link between Iraq and al Qaeda from that statement? Or am I reaching for straws again?

Straws. AGAIN. This was a war on terror. 9/11 happened because of TERRORISTS.

Iraq DID train al Qaeda terrorists you DO know that right?

There is no proof that Saddam had anything to do with 9/11. But they DID have something to do with al Qaeda.

Again olePigeon, this wasn't just a war on the people that did 9/11. Bush made that clear.

[MindFad]

Originally posted by olePigeon:
How can you not assume there's a link between Iraq and al Qaeda from that statement?

When you're a blind, dumb, willfully ignorat shill, of course.

[Zimphire]

Originally posted by MindFad:
When you're a blind, dumb, willfully ignorat shill, of course.

Yes because it surely says it plain as day!!!@

It certainly wouldn't be shilly reading into something that just wasn't there right?

[olePigeon]

Originally posted by Zimphire:
Straws. AGAIN. This was a war on terror. 9/11 happened because of TERRORISTS.

SLAP Do you ever stay on topic? I'm not arguing about who really was responsible for the attacks on September 11th. I'm arguing that those statements were purposely misleading people into thinking that Iraq had something to do, or was directly responsible for, the attacks on September 11th. They were stated after the fact, not before, only to establish people's existing suspicions that Iraq might have had something to do with it simply because we're at war with them.

I am showing you that Bush & Co. took advantage of the American people to generate support for the war in Iraq.

[Zimphire]

And I am showing you are making connections that have absolutely no facts to base them on.

You are grabbing for straws.